The right to assisted suicide is an intricate topic posed upon those in the United States and several other countries throughout the world. Assisted suicide proposes a controversy of whether or not a person has a right to solicit death through the help of a licensed physician. This issue has sparked an intense moral controversy.
Assisted suicide has become apparent in various places around the world such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Oregon and Washington (Humphry). The increasing legalization of assisted suicide creates an even bigger controversy because it disrespects the beliefs of many who are pro-life. But, the act of legalizing assisted suicide in countries and states shows that people are starting to be think more compassionately instead of binding strictly to the laws.
When people think of the words “assisted suicide” many believe it is the action of helping a person commit suicide without the aid of a licensed doctor, making it seem unlawful and inhumane. The importance of assisted suicide is that is directed by a physician that serves to make dying as painless and dignified as possible. Even with this understanding, people still oppose this action because it goes against their religious and moral beliefs. Others support the legislation because of their compassion and respect for those who suffer.
Supporters main argument for assisted suicide is that everyone has their own freedom and self determination to decide what they want to do with their lives; others should not be able to control a persons fate. An advocate believes that assisted suicide should be allowed as long as their is no harm inflicted on others.
Contrastingly, people who argue against assisted suicide have the opi...
... middle of paper ...
... should be up to them of how they want to live it. The United States allows for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, so how can assisted suicide not be allowed when we have the right to speak for ourselves. Our life is not our own if we cannot choose when to end it.
Works Cited
"Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?." Santa Clara University - Welcome. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.
http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/suicide.html
Humphry, Derek. "Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die." Assisted Suicide - Information on right-to-die and euthanasia laws and history. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.
http://www.assistedsuicide.org/liberty_and_death_manifesto_right_to_die.html
Kuhse, Helga, Peter Singer, and John Lachs. Bioethics: an anthology. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. Print.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue, including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns of both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this, and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
gotten to the point where they feel as if there is no point in living.
In the end, morals are the only argument surrounding the subject of assisted suicide. There is no real way of determining what is right and what is wrong. It all comes down to your own morals and beliefs regarding human life. Each of us is given our own life and throughout it, we all make our own decisions regarding our wellbeing. We can choose to smoke cigarettes, consume alcohol, speed in cars, and put our lives in danger every day. This is our right as human beings. We chose to live our lives the way we want to live them, why should we not be able to choose how we die?
Throughout the course of history, advances in medical technology have prolonged the length of life and delayed death; however, terminal illnesses still exist and modern medicine is often unable to prevent death. Many people turn to a procedure known as Physician-Assisted suicide, a process by which a doctor aids in ending a terminally ill patient’s life. This procedure is painless and effective, allowing patients to control their death and alleviate unnecessary suffering. In spite of these benefits, Physician-Assisted suicide is illegal in many places both nationally and internationally. Despite the fact that Physician-Assisted suicide is opposed by many Americans and much of the world on ethical and moral grounds such as those based on religion and the morality of taking another life, it should still be legalized because it alleviates suffering of patients, allows patients to choose a dignified death, and allows patients to control their own fate instead of their disease controlling them.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
The 1906 debate concerning whether or not to legalize Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) legal in Iowa and Ohio was the first significant effort to make PAS legal. Ohio quickly rejected it with a vote of 79-23 in the Ohio Legislative. Many other states were also denied but a few were very close. Today, there are many countries for it that still practice, such as Switzerland, The Netherlands, Japan, Mexico, Belgium, Columbia, Albania, and the states of Oregon, Washington, and Vermont in the United States. Those that are against it are Italy, Australia, U.S., Canada, England and Wales, Sweden, Germany, and France (Baird, 2009). Many of those ar...
One of the greatest dangers facing chronic and terminally ill patients is the grey area regarding PAS. In the Netherlands, there are strict criteria for the practice of PAS. Despite such stringencies, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1992) found 28% of the PAS cases in the Netherlands did not meet the criteria. The evidence suggests some of the patient’s lives may have ended prematurely or involuntarily. This problem can be addressed via advance directives. These directives would be written by competent individuals explaining their decision to be aided in dying when they are no longer capable of making medical decisions. These interpretations are largely defined by ones morals, understanding of ethics, individual attitudes, religious and cultural values.
Although widely condoned around the world, only one nation, the Netherlands has made physician assisted suicide legal. Five states tried Washington in 1991, California in 1992, Michigan in 1998,and main in 2000, Oregon in 1994 approved the “Death with Dignity Act” it won 51 percent to 49 percent. 91 people committed suicide with the aid of a physician in the first four years the law was in effect.
Assisted Suicide, also known as mercy killing, occurs when a physician provides the means (drugs or other agents) by which a person can take his or her own life. This assistance is one of the most debated issues today in society followed by abortion. Physicians are frequently faced with the question of whether or not assisted suicide is ethical or immoral. Although assisted suicide is currently illegal in almost all states in America, it is still often committed. Is assisted suicide ethical? Studies have found that the majority of Americans support assisted suicide. One must weigh both sides of the argument before they can decide.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
Throughout the course of history, death and suffering have been a prominent topic of discussion among people everywhere. Scientists are constantly looking for ways to alleviate and/or cure the pain that comes with the process of dying. Treatments typically focus on pain management and quality of life, and include medication and various types of therapy. When traditional treatments are not able to eliminate pain and suffering or the promise of healing, patients will often consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. Assisted suicide occurs when a person is terminally ill and believes that their life is not worth living anymore. As a result of these thoughts and feelings, a physician or other person is enlisted to “assist” the patient in committing suicide. Typically this is done by administering a lethal overdose of a narcotic, antidepressant or sedative, or by combining drugs to create an adverse reaction and hasten the death of the sick patient. Though many people believe that assisted suicide is a quick and honorable way to end the sufferings of a person with a severe illness, it is, in fact, morally wrong. Assisted suicide is unethical because it takes away the value of a human life, it is murder, and it opens the door for coercion of the elderly and terminally ill to seek an untimely and premature death. Despite the common people’s beliefs, assisted suicide is wrong and shouldn’t be legalized.
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.